The Complainant is Moncler S.R.L. of Milan, Italy, represented by Studio Barbero, Italy.
The Respondent is Kaifeng Li of Putian, Fujian, China. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and are registered with GoD, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 6, 2012. On November 7, 2012, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On November 7, 2012, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. In response to a notification by the Center that some of the disputed domain names were available for registration, the Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on November 21, 2012.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 22, 2012. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was December 12, 2012. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 13, 2012.
The Center appointed Michael J. Spence as the sole panelist in this matter on December 18, 2012. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant is the owner of over 500 national and international trade mark registrations including the word “Moncler” which it has used since 1952 in relation to the production of outdoor clothing and equipment. The Respondent is not currently using the disputed domain names. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to its trade mark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names; and that the registration of the disputed domain names, and their continued use, is in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds each of the disputed domain names contains the Complainant’s trade mark in its entirety along with descriptive material, usually suggesting some type of association with the Complainant or its products. There can be no doubt that the disputed domain names are identical, or confusingly similar to, the Complainant’s trade mark.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in relation to the disputed domain names. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
It is for the Complainant to establish, at least prima facie that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names (Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2003-0455; Belupo d.d. v. WACHEM d.o.o.,WIPO Case No. D2004-0110).
In this case the Complainant has been unable to identify any legitimate use, or preparation to use, the disputed domain names by the Respondent. For some time, at least some of the disputed domain names seem to have been used to offer counterfeit goods for sale and also utilize the Complainant’s design mark in the websites. Such use clearly does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. At the current time, the disputed domain names are not apparently being used by the Respondent at all. Such passive holding of the disputed domain names does not, without more, give rise to rights or legitimate interests in them. Moreover, the Respondent, by failing to respond, has not offered an evidence of use, or preparation to use, to rebut this prima facie evidence that it has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in relation to the disputed domain names. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
A pattern of registrations containing the Complainant’s trade marks, including at least some that have been used to sell counterfeit goods, and therefore all of which must be assumed by the Panel under the circumstances to have been registered with the intent of profiting from consumer confusion, must be the clearest case of registration and use in bad faith, pursuant to paragraphs 4(b)(ii) and (iv) of the Policy.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in relation to the disputed domain names. 7. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain names, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , be transferred to the Complainant.
Michael J. Spence
Sole Panelist
Date: December 20, 2012
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy